Pure reason dictates "an omnipotent being exists"

What’s absurd is your deluded assertions, “You can not count to infinity.” Bogus bullshit from the ground up. Infinity is not a number. One can count infinitely assuming others will take over the task when the one passes away.

Obviously this is not practice as the numbers could get so large that it would take several lifetimes just to pronounce the next in a sequence.

There is nothing absurd about a 4 sided triangle, it’s called a square, a rectangle or a trapezoid. You don’t get to say a 4 sided triangle does not exist when you have violated the very definition of what it takes to be called a triangle. All you are doing is postulating semantic bolshily.

A dog does not exist that is a fish. How fucking stupid is that? A sun does not exist that is a vegetable. DUH! On the other hand, were the definition of a 4 sided object given the label of ‘triangle’ and its definition changed to a four sided object, you would be shit out of luck with your semantic bullshit.

Philosopher my ASS!


I forget which episode of Yes Prime Minister, anyway-----

Sir Humphrey is explaining to Bernard is that an official enquiry is never conducted unless the answer has already been decided. That if one is going to tell a lot of lies, the biggest lie is told in the title. Just like pretentiously calling oneself a philosopher. At uni I met professional philosophers who did not claim that title.

Too obtuse?


If your arguments are to have any validity then wording your ideas accurately is paramount.

Again possible is in the dictionary, the tortured double wording does not lend clarity to your argument.

Ffs, did I ask you about fucking time travel? Possible is in the fucking dictionary, this is the kind of bs semantics that will have everyone here challenging your theistic claims as unevidenced.


Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?

It’s a yes no question, please don’t waste my fucking time with non sequitur red herrings about fucking time travel, as if it’s me who doesn’t know what the word possible means. When it’s you who keeps claiming things are possible without evidence or explanation.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim omnipotence is possible?

Time to piss, or get off the pot.

Do I need to quote the fucking dictionary again? That is not the fucking definition of possible . You claimed omnipotence was possible, you claimed unicorns were hypothetically possible, yet despite multiple requests you’ve evade offering any objective evidence.

Do so in your next post or be called a liar.

1 Like

No ffs…

Can you not fucking read?

Your posts are wildly absurd, yet they exist, and are therefore by definition possible.

Oh the irony.

Philosopher is certainly absurd, and yet… here you are!

There is no argument that anyone can pose, not even if it is completely justified and valid that can prove the existence of a god. NONE. All you would have is an argument for the existence of a god. You would still have to produce that god. There has never been an argument for the existence of God that was not based on fallacies of logic or special appeals. Such an argument does not exist. If it did, all the damn theists would be using it. NO SUCH THING CURRENTLY EXISTS and the shit you are attempting to pull is no better. (In fact it is far worse.)

1 Like

Personally I leave the logic and fallacy arguments to much more knowledgeable people in that particular avenue. I love to read it and I pick up the meaning. And, yes on occasion I engage.

But, after reading through I simply decided to go with the whole one word means another word or is =. This was presented because of some commonalities of word use (causally dismissing the identifiers that make it different, but we’ll just set that aside).

Nothing: not anything; no single thing; of no value
It cannot be demonstrated nor identified, is difficult to explain without turning it into “something”, has no scientific backing and really has no effect or meaning in my life.

God: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
It cannot be demonstrated nor identified, is difficult to explain without turning it into “something”, has no scientific backing and really has no effect or meaning in my life.

God = nothing

Both have not been demonstrably evidenced to exist.

@Philosopher was indulging in dubious and disingenuous semantics. He also equated the meanings of two or more words using the phrase “by definition”, when their definitions did not support his claim. Even after this was explained, with the dictionary definition quoted, so he either can’t read, has a remedial grasp of language, or simply lied. If there’s another conclusion I’m not seeing it.

He also posted overly verbose and utterly irrelevant red herrings to avoid direct and specific requests he evidence his claims.

For example when he claimed ‘X’ was possible, and I asked him to demonstrate objective evidence for his claim, he posted several paragraphs of dishonest semantics about the definition of possible using the straw man non sequitur of time travel for no apparent reason, but offers not one shred of evidence to support his claims that omnipotence was possible, or that unicorns were hypothetically possible.

I think he was woefully out of his depth from the start, all the usual theistic hubris and bluster was offered in place of cogent rational argument and or objective evidence.

1 Like

Your posts.

Since they’re absurd, demonstrably exist, and are therefore self evidently possible.

In case this answer was missed in all the distraction of your flounce.

I don’t think we’ll get anywhere. So I will leave it at that. I’m sorry if I wasted your time.


So having made several unevidenced claims in an atheist debate forum, you’re leaving rather than answering requests for evidence.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim omnipotence is possible?

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim that unicorns are hypothetically possible?

Running away can only imply you have none, but lack the integrity to say so.

Like other posters, I don’t believe it’s rationally possible to reason something into existence. Especially when your rationale encompasses multiple unevidenced assertions, and you then refuse to engage honestly with objections to those unevidenced assertions.

However I’ve seen this enough times now to know theists who make such claims, are often unwilling to even acknowledge that their arguments are based on unevidenced assumptions.

So I’m not surprised really, most theists usually manage to stay long enough to imply that the atheist posters here are somehow at fault, so I’ve re-posted the questions I’ve been asking from the start, to show I’ll happily engage in honest dialogue. What I won’t do is accept unevidenced claims as if they represent “pure reason” or are in any way rational.

It’s more a case of seeing that it’d probably be a waste of my time.

I already put the evidence out there. I’ll try again with a different approach:

Note that when I say Existence, I mean that which is omnipresent. That which exists everywhere (Existence). The universe is not Existence because the universe had a beginning. The universe could not have had a beginning in non-existence.

Meaning/ideas cannot come from nothing/non-existence (contradictory to reject).
Existence being infinite accounts for why an infinite number of things such as trees, zeus, unicorns, apples are all meaningful (obvious truth, but I’ll explain why it’s obvious) How can a finite existence accommodate an infinite number of semantics? A finite computer cannot handle an infinite amount of data (unless it had access to the cloud and the cloud was infinite). So a finite existence cannot accommodate an infinite number of semantics. So Existence is infinite. Before going any further, do you agree on this blatantly obvious truth or disagree?

Note, at this point, I am not claiming anything here other than the fact that Existence is infinite. That is ALL I am claiming for now.

If you agree that Existence is infinite, then I’d have reason to think that continuing the discussion will not be a poor use of my time. If disagree (given my above argument on why Existence cannot be finite), then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I’m very skeptical. Just for starters, exactly which attribute of existence are you claiming is infinite? I guess what I’m saying is I’d be just as skeptical of someone claiming the reverse. I don’t know how someone could be so confident about something so vague.

PS: Is Existence a proper noun?

Potential. Existence necessarily can (but not necessarily will) produce an endless number of Big Bangs because it has infinite potential.

It has the potential for an infinite amount of data/semantics. Hence why it accommodates an infinite number of semantics.

How do you know that?

Rephrased: If Sheldon (just for example) comes on later and posts that existence does NOT have potential for an infinite amount of data; why should we believe you and not him?

We did not get semantics from non-existence, and we have access to an infinite number of semantics. We are fully dependent on Existence. No part of us is in non-existence because there is no non-existence for any thing to be in or depend on. There’s only one way to account for why we have access to an infinite number of semantics:

Existence is infinite.

That doesn’t explain why the number of semantics has to be infinite, or how you would know if they are.
Semantics might be finite, but have a number so large that humans will never be around long enough to use them all. That might make it “practically” infinite, but it would still be “technically” finite.

1 Like

That’s an interesting question. Every language seems to have the potential to generate an infinite variety of sentences. However, we can’t really test that because to do so would take an infinite amount of time. So while the potential may exist, the sentences certainly don’t.

1 Like

Every number has semantical value. Every number is meaningful. If semantics are finite, then the set of all numbers is finite. Given your degree in maths, do you not think this to be problematic?

Also, x cannot be both finite and infinite at the same time. If x is practically finite, then x is not technically infinite. If x is practically finite, then x is technically finite.